Re: 024_add_drop_pub.pl might fail due to deadlock
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 024_add_drop_pub.pl might fail due to deadlock |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1K=smQy=XTs34gP4HvbRbdfoSNnD1wNyFZnFi=u=85Fzw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 024_add_drop_pub.pl might fail due to deadlock (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 4:26 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 at 14:46, Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 1:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, that makes sense to me. For HEAD and PG18, we can still add a new > > > argument to the API. For other bank branches, it is better to use a > > > new Ex function as suggested by Kuroda-San. > > > > > > > Here are the updated patches. > > I noticed the order of LockSharedObject and table lock is different > here compared to disable subscription: > Note that catalog tables are not the same. The DisableSubscription() takes lock on pg_subscrition catalog and then on a particular subscription using subscription_id. Here, we are first taking lock on a particular subscription and then on pg_subscription_rel. So, this seems to follow exactly the order which we should follow and I don't see any problem here. Please let us know if you have a specific concern. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: